ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics1992
Bias and variance of extrapolated tails for area-under-the-curve (AUC) and area-under-the-moment-curve (AUMC).
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of a 3-h Sampling Interval to Assess Variability in Cytochrome P450 3A Phenotype and the Impact of Induction and Mechanism-Based Inhibition Using Midazolam as a Probe Substrate.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
- Metabolic Syndrome Exacerbates the Recognition Memory Impairment and Oxidative-Inflammatory Response in Rats with an Intrahippocampal Injection of Amyloid Beta 1-42.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2018Article
- Article
- Variability of the model-independent AUC: the one sample per individual case.Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics · 1999Article
- Accuracy of noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters estimated from bolus injection and steady-state infusion data.Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics · 1995Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The usual formulas for the extrapolated values of AUC and AUMC from tn to infinity produce estimates that are biased. An empirical correction factor is shown to reduce both bias and variance of estimates. The fitted value Cz at the last time-point tn should normally be used in the formulas, rather than the measured concentration Cn. Nonlinear least squares methods offer no advantage over the fitting of a straight line to ln (C).
Indexed as
Identifiers
1287199What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.